Jennifer R. v. Michael C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jennifer R. v. Michael C.

41 A.D.3d 270, 839 N.Y.S.2d 719

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 21, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 41 A.D.3d 270 (Jennifer R. v. Michael C.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jennifer R. v. Michael C., 41 A.D.3d 270, 839 N.Y.S.2d 719 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from order, Family Court, Bronx County (Carol Ann Stokinger, J), entered on or about July 10, 2006, which denied respondent’s objection to the Support Magistrate’s order directing respondent to pay child support of $25 a month, held in abeyance, the application by assigned counsel to withdraw granted, and new appellate counsel, Steven Feinman, 19 Court [271]*271Plaza, Suite 201, White Plains, New York 10601, (914) 949-8214, assigned to perfect the appeal within 90 days of the date of this order.

Counsel argues that any error Family Court may have made in considering respondent’s SSI benefits as income chargeable for child support payments was harmless since a noncustodial parent must pay $25 a month in child support no matter how impoverished he or she might be (citing Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [d], [g]; Matter of Paige v Austin, 27 AD3d 474 [2006]). While we express no opinion with respect to the merits of that argument, counsel’s submission does not demonstrate that a nonfrivolous argument cannot be made that where, as here, there is a finding that a parent’s pro rata share of combined income is $0, and no finding that such share is unjust or inappropriate, neither Family Court Act § 413 (1) (d) nor (g) applies. Accordingly, assignment of new counsel is required (People v Casiano, 67 NY2d 906 [1986]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and McGuire, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal from order, Family Court, Bronx County (Carol Ann Stokinger, J), entered on or about July 10, 2006, which denied respondent’s objection to the Support Magistrate’s order directing respondent to pay child support of $25 a month, held in abeyance, the application by assigned counsel to withdraw granted, and new appellate counsel, Steven Feinman, 19 Court [271]*271Plaza, Suite 201, White Plains, New York 10601, (914) 949-8214, assigned to perfect the appeal within 90 days of the date of this order.

Counsel argues that any error Family Court may have made in considering respondent’s SSI benefits as income chargeable for child support payments was harmless since a noncustodial parent must pay $25 a month in child support no matter how impoverished he or she might be (citing Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [d], [g]; Matter of Paige v Austin, 27 AD3d 474 [2006]). While we express no opinion with respect to the merits of that argument, counsel’s submission does not demonstrate that a nonfrivolous argument cannot be made that where, as here, there is a finding that a parent’s pro rata share of combined income is $0, and no finding that such share is unjust or inappropriate, neither Family Court Act § 413 (1) (d) nor (g) applies. Accordingly, assignment of new counsel is required (People v Casiano, 67 NY2d 906 [1986]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.3d 270, 839 N.Y.S.2d 719, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jennifer-r-v-michael-c-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack